Brown all CAPS window letter with "Defendant" visible!

The witness statement would have failed for certainity had you pressed the Court on that, this is what happens when you get tied up in other things, you miss the mistakes and errors that you could have relied on ... you cannot bring a claim on a redacted account balance can you. Defo more to this than is being made clear in this post i think.

there is considerably more to this to be honest, i think the defendant had a great case a few issues

i) DCA had no idea that a guarantee existed until the defendant started to raise issues in the defence
ii) guarantee is a separate contract to the agreement as it was a contract agreed years after the original agreement and the guarantee was NOT assigned
iii) claimant has no right to issue a claim as they DO NOT have FCA authorisation therefore any order against the defendant is void ab initio
iv) witness statement submitted can be easily ripped to shreds as it is full of hearsay, false statements etc

there are/were other issues but this is over a year old now and i am unsure of certain things, we also managed to get a redacted deed of assignment which contained info. which would have been a help to the defendant.

i agree by trying to go the 'freeman' route immediately turned the court against the defendant making it almost impossible to get a fair hearing.

thanks guys,

mongoose wrote:Never been involved with this, but having read through this, 1st comments are:
1) 1st Credit was spotted as not being regulated under the FCA to collect debt/own debt. Check that they were registered at the relevent time.
2) The witness statement above from the claimant is NOT signed.
3) It looks like the judgement above is IN your favour, and against the claimant. The unless order is against the claimant, not the defendant (ie you)
4) Yes they are able to sue you as guarantor.
5) It appears you signed a 'deed' as guarantor. There are specific rules with deeds. I cannot see it as you removed it but if you want I can review it of you pm me.
6) DO nOT use freeman text on any letter going to the court. The courts have received training to spot this and any things like "of the family of" etc automatically puts you into 'ninny' world.

1. do you know when they became regulated? if they weren't, can this help my case?
2. well spotted, how can this fact help? i know all documents are meant to be signed but virtually none are. (just noticed on 2nd witness statement that the intro page is signed in ink, dated 11th April)
3. sorry, not sure what you mean. i think they were out of time at least twice with submitting their documents but each time the court allowed them late.
4-5. see pm.
6. that was earlier on in the learning cycle and those early documents were signed that way

Libelresponse wrote:The witness statement would have failed for certainly had you pressed the Court on that, this is what happens when you get tied up in other things, you miss the mistakes and errors that you could have relied on ... you cannot bring a claim on a redacted account balance can you. Defo more to this than is being made clear in this post i think.

not sure what elements are relevant to bring a claim on a redacted account balance?

the hearing was set for 1st May 19. over 14 days before that date with written consent from the other party for adjournment.
on 15th April in an email to court i stated
With regards to this case, my mom was put in critical response unit at North Staffs hospital on 7th April.
As a consequence I will not be able to submit my supporting documents.

I require that an extension is granted.
My mom is still in critical response, we have no idea when she will me moved at this time.
this was also sent to intrum the afternoon of this day.

the paperwork was to be sent to the court within 14 days of the hearing (as stated piont 7. on Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track, mom was in hospital from 7th, this slipped my mind but i did try to remedy before the 14 days.

the order on 21 August, if that is what it was. must be the document that Michael Baker attempted to hand to me 30,9 - 1,10.
he did say he had a document with intrum written on it and may have mentioned i'm to attend court because he said to discuss my ability to pay the charge.
he never mentioned the provision of travel expenses, so is lying at least once but i didn't record it.

my last document posted, Michael Barker turned up at my office while i was at work, i did chat with him expressed my concerns and accepted the document.

that's pretty much it...

thanks waylander

waylander62 wrote:there is considerably more to this to be honest, i think the defendant had a great case a few issues

i) DCA had no idea that a guarantee existed until the defendant started to raise issues in the defence
ii) guarantee is a separate contract to the agreement as it was a contract agreed years after the original agreement and the guarantee was NOT assigned
iii) claimant has no right to issue a claim as they DO NOT have FCA authorisation therefore any order against the defendant is void ab initio
iv) witness statement submitted can be easily ripped to shreds as it is full of hearsay, false statements etc

there are/were other issues but this is over a year old now and i am unsure of certain things, we also managed to get a redacted deed of assignment which contained info. which would have been a help to the defendant.

i agree by trying to go the 'freeman' route immediately turned the court against the defendant making it almost impossible to get a fair hearing.

not really sure what all the legal pros and cons are, legal speak goes against my logic!
all your points make sense, but i've no idea how to use them. iii) sounds definite. how to use this?

so...
iii) claimant has no right to issue a claim as they DO NOT have FCA authorisation therefore any order against the defendant is void ab initio
or
a judgment has been made, but to my mind unfairly. i should be granted more time to file a defence?
or
i have to try and undermine the courts authority by being a man under god, lots of videos out there on how but not sure if any have worked!

Certainty of the amonut alledged to be owed ???

The witness statement shows account balance redacted - failure for lack of certainty, because if it is not stated it cannot be added in on the day.

Plus the claimant mentioned they were in the business of acquiring the  forwarding of bulk accounts, its not clear by what type of arrangment this is but it would imply that their is also a lack of certainty in identifying the account they claim you owe on, not just the balance...

But thats should have been called out in your N244 at the time or you waive that defence.

As for the unforseen hardship you were in, its only my opinion but that is asking the court to excercise their equitable discretion, because at common law none of that can be considered, the county court does have that discretion and if their is a conflict in rules between common law and equity, they have to avail equity... but its discretionary, it certainly should have stayed proceedings, if not you could have gone to chancery and got an injunction but thats using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and is even more expensive in costs.

There is no man under god in those courts if you use the BC DOB for a start, and of course you did that when you took the credit facility with the Bank, ....just an FYI but gods laws did not apply at the registered birth date they applied sometime before, about nine months and that time is lost and claimed by another party at the Registry office.... long story too deep to go into here, but i am just trying to alert you to the futility of your argument using that in the county court, which is not where it belongs. Sure fire way to end up on the black list as FMOTL beligerent and General restraining order though. talking from experience here.

Just had another quick thought, did the claimant ever serve a "Statutory Demand"?  Just wondering if these later court actions are part of an attempt at making you bankrupt.

The amount on the initial claim from 1st credit (early Feb 17) matches the figure on the business bank account when it was closed. HSBC notified that they had sold the account to 1st credit mid Jan 17. officially sold mid Dec 16

The Claim Form (from lester aldridge llp. original letter from them early Dec 17) end Feb 18 includes interest with additional £510 for fee + legal costs.
Figure and account number seems consistent

i had requested the assignment letters on 28,11,18,
this arrived in their last bundle which would have been April 19 - is this the assignment?


is Force Majeure not a valid reason here...i see what you're saying, incredible if this is the case.

yeah the DOB BC is a whole mess / SWINDLE but at some point in our being alive, can't we be allowed to wake up!

not sure about a "Statutory Demand" but this is in paperwork


cheers

itheman wrote:not sure about a "Statutory Demand" but this is in paperwork

A Statutory Demand would be clearly identified, headed something like "Statutory Demand under Section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986".  It was just a thought while trying to guess what the August court order might have been in connection with.  Did you not get any paperwork before or after that hearing?

hi ff
and Statutory Demand must be issued?

i cannot find any and don't recall anything other than what i presume must have been the order to attend in Nov (the order 21 Aug)

the afidavit is from Michael Baker, he is not a Mr, so a man?

Sorry to be so blunt but this is a bloody mess, and messy to follow:

Ok, that forward flow account sale agreemnt is just a cover for the agreement, we are not able to see from this if their is an assignment within, not that their has to be a written assignment if its only equitable....for starters.

The other thing is i presume you are the guarantor for the account up to a limit of £15000 and so the BANK have called you in on it to the tune of £7,657 per the agreement/deed of guarantee ? If so as gurantor you have the right to seek validation of the accounting transferred or assigned, you say the figure of matches at closing with the claim amount, is that just your observation or have they provided that proof ?

Michael Baker is appearing as the DOB entity the same same as you are, makes no difference, they know your a man, but your appearing in a capacity, and you have no right to argue that AFTER you have signed the agreement in that capacity .... unless you had an opposing counter claim to set off the debt, which in this case you do not.

Others may have some thing else to add in your cause, but in my view you have wasted too much time already arguing the wrong argument, ...better to look at things like is that sale agreement transfering a legal right to sue for the debt or an equitable one, if the latter they do not need to comply with the 1925 LoPA (S136) on assignments but instead have to satisfy other criteria ...have you read the agreement and established the nature of the transfer ?

Drop the karl lentz drama on this one Buddy, if you wanna get down with the BC DEAD entity character start another thread and i will drop some pointers, just dont trash active claims with this stuff, wrong time and wrong place.

None of those arguments are any use unless we can in some way get the judgement and court order from the original hearing set aside, appealed or otherwise reversed.  While that judgement stands everyone one will treat the debt as already proven, and not up for further debate.

And we still don't know what the order from August is all about.  For a civil debt I really don't believe they'd order people to attend for questioning, or threaten prison if they don't turn up.  Something has escalated beyond the initial claim for money.

The statutory demand question may be irrelevant. FYI it gives formal notice of intent to apply for insolvency (bankruptcy), a course of action available to a creditor.  Not one that's often followed but they might have thought it worthwhile if they thought you had assets somewhere.

blunt is fine and welcomed Libelresponse.

forward flow account sale agreement, contains 60 pages.
The other thing is i presume you are the guarantor for the account up to a limit of £15000 and so the BANK have called you in on it to the tune of £7,657 per the agreement/deed of guarantee ? If so as gurantor you have the right to seek validation of the accounting transferred or assigned, you say the figure of matches at closing with the claim amount, is that just your observation or have they provided that proof ?
the figure matches all correspondence and they have produced years worth of bank statements, which i guess constitutes proof?

Michael Baker is appearing as the DOB entity the same same as you are, makes no difference, they know your a man, but your appearing in a capacity, and you have no right to argue that AFTER you have signed the agreement in that capacity .... unless you had an opposing counter claim to set off the debt, which in this case you do not.
i kinda guessed so

this is the SAR to intrum

reply

SAR HSBC

reply


Clause 22

HSBC Notice of Assignment

1st credit Notice of Assignment


None of those arguments are any use unless we can in some way get the judgement and court order from the original hearing set aside, appealed or otherwise reversed.  While that judgement stands everyone one will treat the debt as already proven, and not up for further debate.
totally agree ff, this is what i assume the order of August was

followed by, posted

then handed to defendant


i hope there is something here that carries some weight against the claimant...

I have no idea what that disobediance order is about, for a civil claim ? Unheard of.

Clause 22 simplyy referes to the fact HSBC reserved the right to transfer their chose in action (pursuant calling on the guarantee).

Their appears to have been two assignments 2014 and 2016, one for the actual bank overdraft facility account and the other for the Guarantee call.

They have told you it was an absolute assighnment, which means it has to have been executed by way of Deed, so S136 does apply, unless its equitable and intrum have joined HSBC to the action by name only, this does not seem to be the case as the letters they have written, expressly state an absolute assignment has occured.

its probably too late for all that now, its also sounding irregular that the Assignment has been shifted to Intrum from 1st credit, that would require a deed of novation because when one entity dissolves its asssets/liabilities dissolve by winding up unless transferred, The court is acting partially if it simply rewrites the claimant name.

From what i see the Claimant did what they had to do to get a Judgment, you let it slip by failing to request for the right documents at the right time, maybe FF or some one else can think of a way you can undo this.

Libelresponse wrote:I have no idea what that disobediance order is about, for a civil claim ? Unheard of.

New one on me as well but here it is "PART 71 - ORDERS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM JUDGMENT DEBTORS".  Essentially the creditor can apply for a court order requiring the judgement debtor to attend court and provide information about their finances. See ..
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part71
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part71/pd_part71

I don't know if you have problems with mail delivery or issues with your address.  I would have expected there to have been prior correspondence before they took these actions.

Well spotted FF, wow they really are going to war with debtors now aren't they, so this becomes a contempt of court issue upon a judgment debtor,,pretty heavy handed like the CTAX where the debtors is already charged as liable, but the bankers always get their way dont they when the court rules are changed, the Court must be changing jurisdiction to do this.

So the problem for "itheman" is is he is a judgment debtor and he needs to find a way to get the CCJ overturned, which i must admit i am not sure about; given the length of time these proceedings have been going on its going to be difficult to argue an irregularity in procedure and most likely falls on discretion.

The Deed per S136 would most likely have undone the claimant if it was called into evidence when it should have been, because i would wager 1st credit dont have it. Which means no Standing to have brought the claim in the first place.

The notice is not the evidence, the notice is "as received by the defendant" evidence the defendant has been put on enquiry, so as to do his due dilligence regards the contents of the notice, (established case law) you cannot then argue they should have disclosed the deed of assignment to back up their claim of standing as the new creditor, its the job of the defendant to require proof of its existence and execution as burden of proof on the claimant, this does not appear to have happened, or did it ? something not adding up still.

This is a tough one at this stage.  The decision right now is whether to attend that court thing next week.  When it comes down to it he probably should as it's not going to go away.  The court hearing is purely information gathering, which is obviously unwelcome and intrusive, but the alternative would seem to be life on the run.

Longer term the question is what the OP can realistically hope to achieve.

why has itheman been banned? was he discovered as the 'other side?

Hell no, thanks for asking though mongoose.

Good to be back. Have had a look on the legal beagles, at least one of them thinks we're all freemen on here...stereotypes everywhere!

Started looking at the A4V, does anyone know if it actually works? Seems straightforward for US citizens but not much for the UK. Great post https://goodf.forumotion.com/t3775-a4v
Could this be the silver bullet?

Sent n244 off to set aside, went to court, didn't give any details as application to set aside in progress.

Another interesting one
https://youtu.be/sjWyHS3tAFQ
And the two birth certificates
https://youtu.be/8F7IjcOlIew

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/accepted-for-value-a4v-best-explanation-of-this-u-c-c-commercial-remedy/

And from the old site
https://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/a4v/

DOG-LATIN
https://justiniandeception.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/first-blog-post/

Does anyone happen to know where you can learn the date a birth certificate was registered?

itheman wrote:Does anyone happen to know where you can learn the date a birth certificate was registered?

The registration date of the vessel is usually printed on the face of the certificate, that is the deposit date in terms of the trust account held at treasury.

You should read the vital registrations and statistics act I think it is, it cites the powers of the Registrar to acquire, hold, transfer and dispose of "ANY" Property, that property is indexed by approval of the treasury commissioners (plural indices) ………. whose property is it and who can prove it ?

Time for an update and cut to the chase

Hear! Hear!
A debt collection agency and a court and an alleged defendant.
The story will unfold...
Any and all advice, criticism and humor is most welcome my friends,

In short a judgement was made against the "defendant". The "defendant" applied to set-aside judgment.
A "hearing" date was Ordered! "Defendant" had found the attached Affidavit and said to the court:...

"Consensus facit legem"

Dear Judge Rawlings
and Mr C Watts [his reply below this email],

Attached you will find copy of AFFIDAVIT the document: HOW_Affidavit_of_Truth_and_Statement_of_Fact.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/17jh4qCwzJHgVAXVUyVgSpIVKfpoiKrne/view?usp=sharing

We would direct your attention to the said affidavit which has been legally agreed by 657 M.P.’s in the U.K. Government Office, specifically Exhibits B & C.

In Exhibit B there is Case Law by Tribunal where Mr David Ward has no liability under the Act because the 63.5 million people in the U.K. have never formally signed a legal consent agreeing to be governed. This is prima facie evidence that government is illegal and criminal, ergo any order or judgement made by The County Court must be removed. Unless The County Court can prove consent has been freely given.

We also direct your attention to Exhibit C where it has been legally confirmed by Chandran Kukathas PHD and his doctrine which can be cited by any Law University Student in his or her thesis that a State is a Company no different to McDonalds and it is also confirmed by the Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA that the office of the Judiciary is sub office of the State/COMPANY and that the Lord Chief Justice and all judiciary Judges are therefore Company Staff.

As this is prima facie evidence in facts, there cannot be any such a court order or judgement and any ALL that are in place for the person Mr Dxx Xxxxx Xxx must be removed.

[Pages 53 - 55 are compelling]

Please note URL’s accompanying legal attachments as follows

Judges

District Judge HOW-LATEEF-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292888400779314/

District Judge HOW-LATEEF-LIEN-002  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292886904112797/

District Judge HOW-LATEEF-LIEN-003  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292876174113870/

District Judge HOW-GRAY-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292868254114662/

District Judge HOW-FITSGERALD-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292863800781774/

District Judge HOW-WOODWARD-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292862800781874/

District Judge HOW-MASHEDER-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292861584115329/

District Judge HOW-BUCKLEY-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1292859867448834/

MP

HOW-FB-LIEN-0001 Fiona Bruce MP  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975342105867280/

HOW-FB-LIEN-0002. Fiona Bruce MP  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975347322533425/

Lawyers

HOW-HAMLINS-RICHARD-PULL-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224986927569462/

HOW-HAMLINS-NEIL-THOMAS-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224986224236199/

HOW-HAMLINS-MATTHEW-PRYKE-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224985000902988/

HOW-HAMLINS-DANIEL-BELLAU-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224984310903057/

HOW-HAMLINS-CHARLESBEZZANT-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224979950903493/

HOW-HAMLINS-ASELLEDJUMABAEVAWOOD-LIEN-001 https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224977054237116/

HOW-HAMLINS-CHARLOTTEALLAN-LIEN-001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1224981397570015/

HOW-CN-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975318689202955/

HOW-CN-LIEN-0002  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975319459202878/

HOW-MROWENS-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/996374820430675/

HOW-JOHN WHITE-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/996373987097425/

HOW-C-ANTHISTLE-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/996371597097664/

HOW-MRTD-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/856315541103271/

Warrant of arrest.

HOW-HMCTS-ACALLISTER-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975354235866067/

HOW-HMCTS-ACALLISTER-LIEN-0002  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/996369447097879/

Bailiff

HOW-LIEN-MRWN-0000001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/941730645895093/

HOW-MRKM-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975368822531275/

HOW-LIEN- MRMD-0000001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/939301839471307/

HOW-LIEN-MRWN-0000002  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/1996362483765232/

HOW-LIEN-MRKN-0000001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/941729395895218/

HOW-MSSW-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975354499199374/

HOW-MSSW-LIEN-0002  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975361325865358/

HOW-SPYE-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/830179827050176/

HOW-SR-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/975370629197761/

HOW-LAS-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/856318257769666/

HOW-JUMC-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/856321777769314/

Parking ticket.

HOW-CEO-084-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/856322781102547/

HOW-CEO-203-LIEN-0001  https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/permalink/856324024435756/

If proof of consent can be presented...

Here is statement of fact:

1.  https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part12.3(b) the relevant time for doing so has expired

The hearing where the alleged judgement was made was for 1st May 2019.

On the 15th May (15 days before the hearing) was sent - With regards to this case, my mom was put in critical response unit at North Staffs hospital on 7th April.
As a consequence I will not be able to submit my supporting documents.

I require that an extension is granted and ask that another hearing date is set.
My mom is still in critical response, we have no idea when she will me moved at this time.

Outside of the 14 days and an email was received on 16th May - Further to the below email, please note that there is a court fee of £100 payable for the below request to be put before a District Judge for directions. This can be paid either by cheque (payable to “HMCTS”) or by card payment over the telephone.

Clearly allowing adjournment if payment is received. The initial requirement was made 15 days before the hearing date. Placing it out of the fee charging 14 days.

2. It may appear to some that the Court would be acting favourably towards the claimant.

A, to prevent this “set aside” from continuing as the facts being as they are.

B, the claimant failed to meet Court Order deadlines. Defendant filed a “Strike Out” which was not allowed. Email sent to the Court 28,1,19 - With respect to Claim No. E5GC249W and the Court Orders dated 6th December 2018 and 8th January 2019 please find attached Strike Out-confirmation letter-28,1,19.docx and copies of both Court Orders.
Which was denied by email on 7,2,10 - Your letter has been put before District Judge O’Brien and her replies is as follows:

‘I remain satisfied that the Claimant had complied with the order – the case is not struck out.’

Further directions are in the post to you.

Without ill-will or vexation,

For and behalf of the principal DXXX XXX XXXX

For and behalf of the Attorney General of the House of Xxxx

For and behalf of the Baron Dean of the House of Xxxxxx

On 13/07/2020 15:42, Stoke on Trent County, Hearings wrote:

Good Afternoon,

You have received an order from the court confirming that your hearing will take place by way of telephone hearing (“the Order” and “the Telephone Hearing”).

The Order confirmed the steps that needed to be taken by the parties at least 7 days before the Telephone Hearing in order to ensure that the judge conducting the Telephone Hearing has the documents which they need to decide those matters that fall to be decided at the Telephone Hearing and the information they need to connect the parties to the Telephone Hearing. Those steps included the party identified in that order sending to the court by email, at least 7 days before the Telephone Hearing:

a bundle of documents for use by the judge at the Telephone hearing (“E Bundle”); and the direct telephone numbers of the parties on which they can be contacted for the purposes of the Telephone Hearing and their email addresses (“the Required Details”).

Please refer to the Order for full details of what each party must do in advance of the Telephone Hearing and at the Telephone Hearing.

If the party required by the Order to do so, has already sent to the court an email containing the Required Details and attaching the E Bundle, then please disregard this email. If however such an email has not been sent to the court, then the parties must ensure that such an email containing the Required Details and attaching the E Bundle is received by the court not less than 3 days before the date fixed for the Telephone Hearing failing which the Telephone Hearing will be vacated.

Kind Regards,

Chloe Welsh

Administrative Officer

Civil Listing | HMCTS | Stoke-on-Trent County Court | Hanley | ST3 7BP

Phone: 01782 854000

  -   AND Colin Watts

Dear Sir,

We have reviewed your email below as well as your second email stating    “Should anything need to be discussed. 077xxxxxxx”.

At the date of this email, the Judgment still exists so that the only useful discussion that might take place would concern terms and timing of your payment of that Judgment.

We would insist on any such discussion in that regard being reduced to writing at this point.

Finally and so that the matter is absolutely clear, we do not consider there to be a shred of either evidentiary or legal value in your emails under reply or the attachment.    To assist, if the intention is to introduce the attachment as evidence, we will be resisting that introduction.  

Yours sincerely,

Colin Watts

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colin Watts

Legal Manager

Phone: +44 (0)1737 228349

Email: colin.watts@intrum.com

www.intrum.co.uk



Intrum

Registered office: The Omnibus Building,

Lesbourne Road, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 7JP.

Registered number: 03752940

Legal entity: Intrum UK Limited

______________________________

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct

Authority with firm reference 718918

This email and any attachments are confidential and

may also be privileged. If you are not the named

recipient, please notify the sender immediately and

do not disclose the contents to another person, use

it for any purpose, or store or copy the information

in any medium. Thank you for you cooperation.

Information on how we process personal data

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

  -   The hearing took place, District Judge Masters was caught off guard.
Emails have been exchanged:...

    "Every          Man is independent of ALL LAWS except those prescribed by          nature. He          is NOT bound by any institution formed by his fellow Men          WITHOUT his          consent."
        Cruden V Neale ZNC 338 May Term 1796

Dear          District Judge Masters

    With          regard to our broken conversation Tuesday          morning. And to tell you that I took offence at you telling me          to shut up.
It was stated on many occasions that the telephone connection was very poor and I complained that I could not hear you many times. I not believe that was reason for you to hang-up on me.
     

I          require a copy of the transcript or recording of our          conversation so          that I may redress this matter correctly and accurately should          I need          to.
        Please forward at your earliest convenience.

I          said but don't know if you heard:
1. THAT A matter must be expressed to be resolved. - I am raising the matter that neither you or the County Court HMCTS have no proof of my consent to do business. There is no contract in place.
2. THAT Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit. - Attached Affidavit. Again.
3. THAT An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth. - Attached Affidavit.
        4.          THAT An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce.          - Here          we are.

To          also add:
THAT While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default. - You complained that Mr Colin Watts was unavailable and you had tried several times. We were 10 minutes late starting our conversation and you tried to call him again.
             

    Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or          vexation,
For and behalf of the principal XXXXX XXX XXXXXX
For and behalf of the Attorney General of the House of Xxxxx
        For          and behalf of the Baron Dean of the House of Xxxxx

Without          any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all          Natural Indefeasible          Rights reserved.


On 27/07/2020 10:05, Stoke on Trent County, Hearings wrote:

Dear Dean,

You will need to send your attachment to the Court as a hard copy as we only a print a maximum of 50 pages.

Kind regards,

Katie-May Barnett
Administration Officer
Civil & Tribunals | HMCTS
Stoke-on-Trent County Court | ST1 3BP
Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

Dear Katie,

Please except this, my apology for my late reply.

I assume that you were able to print off the first 50 pages then to print off pages 51 and the remaining?

I am not able to print off any sheets as I do not currently have access to a printer and I do not want to risk a visit to a post office.

I have not received the transcript that I require as yet, is this in progress?

Dear District Judge Masters,

I have however received apparently by your hand and from Boston Count Court a General Form of Judgment or Order stating:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The application is dismissed

Dated 21 July 2020

I am assuming that this relates to my application to Set Aside judgment?

As this precedes my email on 24th July 2020 and my email on the 14th July, that neither email has been addressed and that there is no evidence of consent I require confirmation that this General Form of Judgment or Order is void and/or postponed until the consent matter is dealt with, then re-presented with the correct date in the future that it happens.

The “rule of law” must be distinguished from the “rule of judges”. The judges are not free to do what they wish.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Speeches/beatsonj040608.pdf

From: HOW_Affidavit_of_Truth_and_Statement_of_Fact.pdf I have not attached it this time as it is printed (at least in part).
6. From Exhibit (B) ... But what was challenged was the presumption of the
consent of the governed. What is a mandatory requirement before the Acts and statutes can be legally acted upon is that
the consent of the governed has some validity and that it can be presented as material fact before any charges can be
brought. It is clear from this case authority undertaken by due process that: - (1) It is illegal to act upon any of the Acts
or statutes without the consent of the governed where the governed have actually given their consent and that consent is
presentable as material physical evidence of the fact that the governed have given their consent. (2) Where the Acts and
statutes are acted upon then this is illegal and a criminal action by the state. (3) The criminal action is Malfeasance in a
public office and fraud. (4) Were there is no consent of the governed on and for the public record then there is no
governed and where there is no governed then there is no government. The one cannot exist without the other. (5) As this
criminal activity is observed to be standard practice and has been for nearly 800 years, then this is clear observable
evidence to the fact that LAW is a presumption and there is no such thing as LAW. See Exhibit (A) the twelve
presumptions of law.
11. From Exhibit (G). My rights end where your rights begin. Your rights end where my rights begin. Rights are not granted
by government or the crown and they cannot be taken away or violated by government or the crown. A Judge does not
have the right to trespass on my property so the judge cannot give a Bailiff or a civil enforcement officer or a policeman
the right by means of a warrant or an order because the Judge, who is a company servant by default, does not have that
authority unless I agree. A public servant is a servant by default with the status of servant and a servant has no authority
above the one who grants that authority. Until the Judge can present the agreement or the consent of the governed then
the Judge has no authority to grant a warrant or a court order...

I want to make sure that we have absolute clarity on this matter;
That no proof of consent = no consent to be ordered = no order or judgement. Fact.
That future Orders and Demands and Notices and Requests from any persons hand may be deemed to be harassment, fraud, criminal activity, terrorism or any or all of these crimes and that steps to redress the crime/s will be taken.
Or
If consent is proved to have been freely given with full disclosure and under no duress, than we can continue as per General Form of Judgment or Order 3rd July 2020.

Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,
For and behalf of the principal XXXXX XXX XXXXXX
For and behalf of the Attorney General of the House of Xxxxx
        For          and behalf of the Baron Dean of the House of Xxxxx

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.

On 03/08/2020 16:17, Stoke on Trent County, Hearings wrote:

Good Afternoon,

Unfortunately we do not print off documents over 50 pages because of cost, not printer capacity. With regards to your transcript request, I cannot see that we received a form EX107 requesting such. If you need one, this can be found on the gov.uk website.

Kind Regards,

Chloe Welsh

Administrative Officer

Civil Listing | HMCTS | Stoke-on-Trent County Court | Hanley | ST3 7BP

Phone: 01782 854000


Dear Chloe,

Thank you for your email and information.

Regarding EX107 and the hearing data, I require to know:
a, which company provided the hearing?
b, how long this data is held?
c, has the County Court accessed this data?
d, has anyone at the County Court heard this data?
    e, how long will the County Court hold this data?

Regarding printing the Affidavit, if you do not print off the      remaining pages, what affect will that have?
 

To make it clear that an Affidavit that is un-rebutted stands as      judgment.
That this Affidavit has been presented and disclosed to the County Court.
That no proof of consent has been presented.
That this case hinges on proof of consent.
That you have the Affidavit at your disposal.
That the burden stands with the County Court to prove consent and if that means printing more pages than usual then it does.
That at this moment in time there is no consent.

Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,
For and behalf of the principal XXXXX XXX XXXXXX
For and behalf of the Attorney General of the House of Xxxxx
        For          and behalf of the Baron Dean of the House of Xxxxx

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.

Tried to upload this affidavit. Is web storage running low? Somewhere donations can be made?

This document really should be read by all. It remains as far as believed unrebutted and I don't know if anyone without Gmail can read it.

This should also work but not sure how long it will be available
https://we.tl/t-rwEHZBXvHl

actually its not too big, i updated the max file size eons ago, i try to upload it , if it works now i have fixed the issue!

Hi Lopsum, thanks.

While waiting for the court to decide it has no power without consent, i feel that action should be taken towards intrum, afterall they have this instrument to charge Mr XXX XXX. And it could be used again.
One needs to ensure that one has the original (as it was created by ones own hand).

What is the instrument/s that would be required...in bold? [Waylander has said]
i) DCA had no idea that a guarantee existed until the defendant started to raise issues in the defence
ii) guarantee is a separate contract to the agreement as it was a contract agreed years after the original agreement and the guarantee was NOT assigned
iii) claimant has no right to issue a claim as they DO NOT have FCA authorisation therefore any order against the defendant is void ab initio
iv) witness statement submitted can be easily ripped to shreds as it is full of hearsay, false statements etc

This will hopefully prove they don't have one or other or both, which should stop them from further proceedings plus it would be deemed as an act of fraud?